Iowa poll: Christie leads Hillary by five, Rand Paul trails her by just one

posted at 5:31 pm on December 17, 2013 by Allahpundit

Laying aside the inconvenient fact that presidential polls this far out from 2016 are meaningless, what’s the biggest news here? That Christie’s strong enough to now lead Her Majesty in a state where she, er, finished third in 2008? Or that Rand Paul, who’s supposed to be a niche candidate, is competitive with her despite her near universal name recognition?

Actually, the biggest news is that Iowans are lukewarm about Hillary. Every Republican polled here draws a chunk of don’t-knows when people are asked how they’d do as president, but nearly everyone has an opinion about Hillary. She does well — more than half (53/42) say she’d make a good chief exec — but Republicans like Christie and Paul must be benefiting from considerable “Not Hillary” sentiment to some extent. Beyond that, I think the biggest news is Jeb Bush. If he jumps in, he and Christie will battle to be crowned the establishment’s designated “centrist problem-solver.” You would think, given Bush’s own name recognition, that either the two would poll relatively evenly in Iowa or Bush would have a slight advantage. Nope.

More Republicans think Jeb would be a better president than Christie would, but Christie destroys him among independents and, at 33 percent, has a bigger share of the opposing party’s voters willing to vouch for him than any other candidate mentioned by Quinnipiac. (Hillary’s a distant second, with 19 percent of Republicans saying she’d make a good president.) At 31/45, Bush actually does quite a bit worse among indies than the supposedly unelectable Paul does. Maybe that’s his surname scaring people off or maybe it’s something else, but GOP donors will be keeping an eye on it.

The other wrinkle to Christie’s numbers is how well he does with traditionally Democratic groups. Quinnipiac didn’t split its numbers by race but it did split them by gender and age. Head to head with Hillary, Christie’s the only Republican who holds her to less than a 20-point lead among women. She leads him by 10 versus Paul by 21, Cruz by 23, and Bush by 24(!). The age data is even more interesting: Rand Paul does as well as Christie does against Hillary among voters age 18 to 29, but once you leave that group, he starts to tail off while Christie remains strong. Compare:

That’s something else GOP donors will be watching. It may be true that Paul’s views on civil liberties and the drug war play better with young adults than traditional Republican positions do, but what is he giving up among older voters by taking them? You would at least want him to win the 18 to 29 group going away to make it worth taking a chance on him. Not here, not yet.

One other tidbit: When asked if Ted Cruz would make a good president, voters overall split 28/42 and Republicans split 55/16. The latter number’s not bad, especially given how many voters haven’t formed an opinion yet, but that’s the second underwhelming poll from Iowa for him this week. Given how well he’s been received there, maybe it’s a simple matter of things taking off once he’s on the trail. Even now, his numbers are way better than Joe Biden’s: When asked if Diamond Joe would make a good president, voters split … 29/62, with even Democrats splitting just 55/33. Oof.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Yes indeed, and if 2014 proves to be a breakout for a GOP majority in both the House and Senate, we might hear pleas for Bammy to remain in office, as only he can fend off the might and evil of the Rethuglians….

Christie is no conservative, but unlike the others RINOs, at least he is real, and unlike the others who really are conservative, he has huge crossover appeal. So yah, if you draw the Venn diagram, the GOP will have another RINO for president. It’s the nature of the beast.

So yah, if you draw the Venn diagram, the GOP will have another RINO for president. It’s the nature of the beast.

keep the change on December 17, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Or, you know, we could actually nominate Paul and win. Might be worth thinking about a genuine conservative who can appeal to groups that don’t traditionally vote Republican.

Just saying, the last time the GOP took a gamble and nominated a genuine conservative who appealed to groups that don’t traditionally vote Republican, he did rather well. You might have heard of him: his name was Ronald Reagan.

The problem with that thinking is that America today is not America of 35 years ago. Reagan wouldn’t win today. Remember, back then California was a republican lock. lol. The demographic makeup of America today can not allow for that ever again. In 1984, Reagan took every state save Minnesota. Even New York was still conservative enough to vote Republican. Even Hawaii.

In the intervening 35 years, the Overton window moved so far left as to make that impossible.

Enroll Maven is an independent watchdog website dedicated to tracking Obamacare Qualified Health Plan (QHP) enrollment in the 50 states and the District of Columbia during the inaugural enrollment period that runs from October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014. QHPs are government-approved health insurance plans being offered through the federal health insurance exchange known as healthcare.gov and health insurance exchanges run by 14 states and D.C.

Enroll Maven believes its watchdog role is vital given that government personnel charged with implementing Obamacare, the insurance industry and many media outlets have a vested interest in declaring Obamacare a success regardless of the facts. Since the Obamacare rollout began on October 1st, Obamacare enrollment facts have been spun in different ways. One common form of spin has been to ignore QHP enrollment numbers and instead emphasize pre-enrollment parameters, such as website hits, user accounts created and applications started. Another has been to lump QHP enrollment together with Medicaid enrollment (which has been the bulk of enrollment so far).

That’s why I didn’t say we should nominate Ronald Reagan — I said we should nominate a conservative who appeals to groups that don’t traditionally vote Republican. That was Reagan in ’80, but Reagan wouldn’t fit that description today: the “Reagan Democrats” have been voting GOP in presidential races on-and-off for a generation, so they pretty much are a traditional part of any GOP majority.

We need someone who can play an analogous role in today’s America, and I’m suggesting that person is Rand Paul, precisely because he’s different from the identical “Reagan Republican” 9 of 10 guys on the debate stage claim to be every 4 years. His differences on drug policy, sentencing reform, tax policy and foreign policy are precisely what define him as a conservative, but one who appeals to minorities and especially young voters who would never give John McCain or Romney the time of day.

I like the “not Killery” sentiment. It gives Lurch a big opening, and since I won’t be voting for any RINOs this time around — or ever again — I want to at least be entertained by the campaign season. Lurch vs. Killery would be entertaining as hell. She’d have to tell the world that he shot himself in the ass to get out of Vietnam — and he’d have to tell the world that she was falling down drunk while our ambassador was getting raped and killed in Benghazi.

Yes Ron Paul is socially liberal enough to have crossover appeal to Reagan democrats. But of course, the GOP and the social cons want nothing to do with him. They would feel more comfortable with Christie, because at least with Christie, they get the traditional foreign policy platform that disqualifies Paul from being considered.

think most Americans are spent when it comes to foreign adventures and the “traditional foreign policy platform” of the GOP.

Yes, America is fed up with it, but not the GOP. And before you can go before the voters as the GOP candidate, you have to pass the GOP litmus test. Paul fails that test, so he won’t get the chance to go before the voters in 2016. Which is another reason why Christie will get the nod.

I find it interesting that Clinton loses to Christie in all age groups except 50-64, and that’s also the group where Clinton does the best against Rand Paul. People who are now aged 50-64 were aged 27-41 in 1992, when Bill Clinton was first elected. Most of them were in their 30’s, old enough to have a job and enjoy the prosperity of the 1990’s, but they also forgave him Monica Screwin’sky.

Clinton doesn’t enjoy the support among younger voters that Obama did, probably because younger voters don’t remember the 1990’s well, and Clinton’s recent experience as Secretary of State was very negative. Also, both Christie and Rand Paul are much younger than Hillary Clinton, if Rand Paul can dissociate himself from his Crazy Old Man.

Maybe what the GOP needs in 2016 is a candidate YOUNGER than Hillary Clinton, to win the younger voters and break even among the 50-64 baby-boomers. Scott Walker? Bobby Jindal? And if the women’s vote is a problem, what about Nikki Haley?

That’s why I didn’t say we should nominate Ronald Reagan — I said we should nominate a conservative who appeals to groups that don’t traditionally vote Republican. That was Reagan in ’80, but Reagan wouldn’t fit that description today: the “Reagan Democrats” have been voting GOP in presidential races on-and-off for a generation, so they pretty much are a traditional part of any GOP majority.

We need someone who can play an analogous role in today’s America, and I’m suggesting that person is Rand Paul, precisely because he’s different from the identical “Reagan Republican” 9 of 10 guys on the debate stage claim to be every 4 years. His differences on drug policy, sentencing reform, tax policy and foreign policy are precisely what define him as a conservative, but one who appeals to minorities and especially young voters who would never give John McCain or Romney the time of day.

Inkblots on December 17, 2013 at 5:59 PM

I agree. And regarding us “older” folks, when we were young, we
knew that our fathers had fought in WWII, however, didn’t give it
much thought. Then we were saddened when our older brother didn’t
come back from Vietnam; we recall the stories of servicemen not being supported with our excellent air cover because some politicians were (are) stupid. We remember the traitor Jane Fonda. We didn’t vote for Kerry, many dems because of the Swiftboat
scandal. The rest of us just couldn’t stand to look at him or hear him speak. When our sons and daughters were sent to
Iraq or Afghanistan, we were petrified. The thought of our grandchildren being sent overseas makes us very angry. We have
had enough. The turning point was Bush’s 8 year war in the middle east; then Obama adds his floundering a$$ in and around the area.

Do not count Rand Paul out because of his foreign policy views.
We are war weary and will pay attention to him.

Yes, America is fed up with it, but not the GOP. And before you can go before the voters as the GOP candidate, you have to pass the GOP litmus test. Paul fails that test, so he won’t get the chance to go before the voters in 2016. Which is another reason why Christie will get the nod.

keep the change on December 17, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Nah, the country is changing and this is Rand Paul’s moment if he can get the $$$ together. Folks want change, real change.